Have We Outgrown Our Government?

Our government Is NOT ruled by a majority, but Instead is ruled by an already enforced set ot laws that are interpreted and enforced on to actions that the government and its people want to participate in: and can only be changed by amending the current list of unalienable laws that are given to us by this Constitution. Even with this understanding, our country still came to this governmental standstill that has threatened to throw us into another. more devastating economic depression. So then we ask, what exactly is wrong with our government?

After reviewing articles and isten to Professor Arbour’s lecture on the advantages to a parliamentary government, [Ve been able to come toa sound conclusion. The Constitutional Republic that we currently have is no longer functional. and that we must adapt and change to a more unicameral, majoritarianistic, parliamentarian system of government, if we wish to see our country thrive as it once did. To understand the root of the problem. we first have to understand the major difference between a unicameral. arliamentarian type of government am arguing for, and the bicameral, constitutional republic that we are currently ruled by. In a parliamentarian system, there iS only one unicameral chamber, Of only ONE political party. The party that is elected has a strong stance, its ideology is well known and can be expected to be followed thoroughly, and it is elected to enact laws and pass legislation. Preferably, the elected party is representative of what the majority of the people actually want.

With only one political party, usually housing strong ideologies on what should be done with the country that t is gwermng, It Is much easier for the population to themselves Identify what is working and what Is not orking as law. Addtlonally it is easier tor voters to see where parts ot the system has gone wrong, who implemented these changes, and makes voting out the detrimental unit, either physical representative or piece of legislation, much more effective.

Professor Arbours lecture made It a point to drive this particular Idea home, “Advantages: Easy for voters to assign blame or credit’. Given that elections are able to be held whenever there is a deadlock between representatives as well. this form of government would allow us to quickly handle the dispute by putting it up to a vote. y wanted to force a showdown over the budget a year after the election, we’d have another election… winning party would get to implement its agenda”.

In contrast, with the constitutional republic we are in now, assigning blame to parties responsible for malfunctioning pieces of legislation and ousting them from our governing system is one of the most difficult things to do. The fact that our government is run by two different majorities, who seemingly have enough power to be each be respectively called a majority, makes the creation, review, and enactment f laws painstakingly difficult. Taking the current economy, and governmental standoff, of the United States as an example we can see the glaring downfalls of our bicameral chambers unfolding in front of our eyes.

With each party blaming the other for economic difficulties, and each claiming to represent their respective groups, no one really knows what exactly these groups really stand for, and consequently, don’t know who is to blame for the government breakdown. First of all, as we see that now the parties are becoming more and more united to one central thinking or ideology hey are representing (something that we haven’t really seen in previous years), this presents a devastating problem towards effective governing of the US.

Although we say that the ‘majority rules in our government the fact is that with the amount of power we give the ‘minority group, they do have the ability to act as a majority group would. The group that is considered to be representing the minority group in our population, in efforts to have everyone equally represented, essentially has almost the same amount of power that the majority group has already, in essence, won hrough elections.

The article “Blame the Constitution for This Mess” by Alex Pareene brings this exact point to the forefront: “Shouldn’t we actually be upset about a system of government that gives 80 people representing 18 percent of the population the ability to drag the United States to the edge of national default? ” To clarify this even further, the way our governmental system is set up is so disproportionate, that it gives 18% of the population the ability to bring the entire government, including the majority (82% of the US population) to its knees.

Through his shocking scenario, one thing remains glaringly clear: our republican system is crippled by the laws that were made to support it. This constant game of strategy to see who can get their bill passed into law, or who can get their specific group’s wants expressed to have better chances at re-election takes the focus away from actual effective national governing. This makes our government essentially useless, to the point where it is comparable to two separate groups playing a game of ‘Chicken’ to see who backs down first.

Many people perceive this parliamentary form of government bad, because the ajority would constantly be able to win control over how the government is run. To my understanding, isn’t that exactly what we, as a country made up mainly of middle class, working American citizens, so desperately need? This seemingly utopian form of government will undoubtedly have flaws. One said flaw that is quite apparent would be the need to have constant elections, even more frequent that we already legislation that many have viewed as detrimental to the country, there will have to be a vote conducted to decide on it.

This would make policy making especially hard, eeing as whenever a policy is made, if it seems detrimental in the eyes of the people, it can be voted out, effectively stalling or making policy making itself, a hassle. Though bothersome, it is a price that I personally would willingly pay if it meant actual representation of our current majority, not representation of “ideological minority’ groups, as stated by Pareene. In my opinion, it has been far too long since policies have sufficiently represented the will of the people, and not the will of the lobbyists at the Capital.

This discombobulated Republic that were erroneously call a Democracy has been imply outgrown. We are being run by a government created hundreds of years ago, by men who could have never fathomed what we would become. It is known that a country is not static. Its people, societies, thinking, needs, issues, norms, and ideas are constantly changing and morphing into new, more advance things. Why is it then, that we confine ourselves to a static form of government? If our ideas, needs, norms, and issues are constantly changing, why are we, as a united people, unable to replicate this change in our government?

A government that is in charge of running ne of the most prosperous, dynamic, and leading countries in the world, needs to be one that is able to adapt to the changes that, as a country and as citizens, we will inevitably have to face. Over the years, we have become too lax, too fearful to take the reins of our country back. We put the government in power to make sure that order is kept, and to make surer that it will fit our needs, not the other way around. We do not work for our government our government works for us, and with a parliamentarian government, it will have the flexibility to do exactly that. word count: 1,400